Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 9 OF 36

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Deployment configurations for improved oil containment with selected sorbent boom's
Author Smith, Gary F.
CORP Author Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., Leonardo, NJ.;Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincinnati, OH.
Publisher Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Year Published 1981
Report Number EPA/600/2-81/168; EPA-68-03-2642
Stock Number PB82-101650
OCLC Number 48658161
Additional Subjects Oil pollution ; Containment ; Booms(Equipment) ; Sorbents ; Deployment ; Regeneration(Engineering) ; Water pollution
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=600018M9.PDF
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
ELBD  EPA 600-2-81-168 AWBERC Library/Cincinnati,OH 12/28/2001
NTIS  PB82-101650 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 01/01/1988
Collation vii, 23 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Abstract
Performance tests on three catenary oil containment configurations using sorbent booms sections alone and in conjunction with a conventional containment boom, were conducted at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (U.S. EPA OHMSETT). Other test variables included wave condition, tow speed, and oil quantity encountered. Maximum no-oil-loss containment tow speed was determined for each wave and oil quantity tested. The use of an all-sorbent boom with a multilayer sorbent raft at the apex exhibited average increases in no-oil-loss tow speed of 0.13 m/s over previous results using a single layer boom in calm water. Use of a sorbent raft inside the apex of a conventional containment boom increased turbulence and caused oil loss at lower speeds than use of the conventional boom alone. No-oil-loss tow speeds using the sorbent boom raft at the boom apex also decreased from previous results using a single layer sorbent boom in the 0.3-m harbor chop wave. Loss was due to increased turbulence from raft sections striking each other from the wave action. Recovery of sorbed fluid and regeneration of the boom sections was unsuccessfully attempted using a commercially available sorbent and wringer.
Notes
Project officer: John S. Farlow. Contract no. 68-03-2642. Photocopy.